This Is an In-depth analysis of case study Involving the Woods Foundation. The analysis will evaluate the structure, environment (internal and external), strategy and implementation of tactics surrounding the program. This is only my interpretation of the program’s strengths and weaknesses and some suggestions that will prove to be beneficial for the overall organization. Group Development In this scenario, there are two separate groups that decided to create a team to achieve a common goal.
You could also say that these groups are formal by definition. By a formal group, means one is defined by the organization’s structure, with designated work assignments establishing tasks Gouge, peg. 272). In formal groups, the behaviors team members should engage In are stipulated by and directed toward organizational goals. Typically, groups pass through a sequence in their evolution process. I believe that this collective body of individuals has now entered the fourth stage which Is the performing phase of the five-stage-group velveteen model.
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
The structure and model of this group at this point Is fully functional, operational and accepted (peg. Robbins, peg 275). After several months of negotiations, group energy has moved from getting to know and understand each other, to performing the task at hand. In understanding the five-stage model, the Woods Foundation could have maximized their time effectively by eliminating some of their earlier distractions during the storming stage. The storming phase is one of conflict within the collectives.
In this phase, members accept the existence of the group but resist the constraints it imposes on individuality (peg 275). During those months of negotiations, there could have been conflict over who will control the group’s processes and procedures. If time was used effectively, a clear hierarchy of leadership will be defined and the team would have moved through the sequence of evolution much more gracefully. Since they have established their goals that incorporate a positive social focus, they are likely to achieve the performing stage ore rapidly (peg. 75). Problem Identification There are several key factors that are missing in order to fully assess the problem. 1 OFF these students. By doing so, the committee would have a better understanding of their audience. The problem factors stated in the study were mostly external; the group also has problems within their structure and formation, which are much more detrimental in solving the overarching problem. Another dilemma that the Foundation failed to assess is the particular role each individual would have in the group.
By this term, a role is a set of expected behavior patterns attributed to someone occupying a given person in a social unit (peg. 277). The study mentioned the overall role of the group, but not the roles of each individual. Also in creating this group, how many members are involved is very important to efficiency and efficacy. The leaders should focus on what each individual should bring to the table as it relates to their attributes, backgrounds, credentials and talents. Another problem is choosing the right individuals for the executive development team. Retrospective
Evaluation The implementation of an executive developmental cross-functional team is very effective if structured and orchestrated effectively. Cross-functional teams are an effective means of allowing people from diverse areas within or even between organizations to exchange information, develop new ideas, solve problems and coordinate complex projects (peg. 311). But, there should be clear leadership within the team. Proper leadership can improve the performance of diverse teams (peg. 318). I would screen individuals from each entity to ensure maximum productivity and execution of the proposed plan.
Once selections have been made, next is the assigning of roles to these individuals based on their attributes. Naturally, there are some downfalls to this structure that could affect performance at certain stages. Cross-functional teams are sometimes difficult to manage due to their diverse nature. The early stages could also be grueling as well, because of the time it takes to build trust, teamwork and fluidity. Another possible solution is creating a multi-team system, in which different teams coordinate their efforts to produce a desired goal peg. 311).
As stated in the earlier example, use the same process by screening individuals and placing them in specific teams with designated roles with shared leadership. One team would be a self-managed team (planning, operational and implementation) and the other would be the problem-solving team (assessing the problem at hand in order to improve quality, productivity and efficiency). Teams that establish shared leadership by effectively delegating it are more effective with a traditional single-leader structure (peg. 314). Of course, there are setbacks in this del as well.
Since there are multiple teams, it is hard to govern several groups, which could lead to the “too many Chiefs and not enough Lieutenants” complex. Leadership could also be skewed due to shared responsibilities and tasks which could negatively impact productivity. Accountability could also be an issue within these types of group because no one wants to be blamed for a bad recommendation. All of this can attribute to role conflict, when compliance with one role requirement may make it difficult to comply with another role (peg. 278). Reflection
Teams cannot function without proper guidance, thorough facilitation and robust for everyone to follow. In order for a leader or leaders to be effective, they must understand their environment (external and internal factors), situation (problem), and their resources (affiliates, information, and employees’ traits, backgrounds and characteristics) in order to achieve their goal.